Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 17706]

I'm fine with taking that risk, at least they're considering safe for consumption at the moment.

How is that any consolation? You're putting your health in the hands of some regulatory body staffed by people you don't know who may or may not be strongly influenced by certain interests.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

How is that any consolation? You're putting your health in the hands of some regulatory body staffed by people you don't know who may or may not be strongly influenced by certain interests.

That can be said for anything you eat, as it's all regulated
I'm not about to start growing my own food, I simply cannot afford that.

 

[Yoritomo]

Calorie intake is secondary to other factors.

Take in less calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Hell, it's impossible to not lose weight. Of course diet can affect tons of things, but functionally when it's related to weight, and not things like body composition, muscle mass, the calories in < calories out means you lose weight. You'll probably die early on that only 2 packs of Ramen a day diet but you'll lose weight in the process.

 

[Always-honest]

This explains a lot.

 

[TheExodu5]

Take in less calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Hell, it's impossible to not lose weight. Of course diet can affect tons of things, but functionally when it's related to weight, and not things like body composition, muscle mass, the calories in < calories out means you lose weight. You'll probably die early on that only 2 packs of Ramen a day diet but you'll lose weight in the process.

The amount of calories different people can take in before they start gaining weight varies quite dramatically.

 

[A.E Suggs]

So does this scientifically make Halloween National Dumbass Day?

For your teeth? Yes! for your body, probably not.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

The amount of calories different people can take in before they start gaining weight varies quite dramatically.

Even on an individual basis, it varies depending on wide variety of factors and hormonal signals.

Also, you just can't ignore hunger in this. If you're constantly battling with hunger, it's going to be tough as hell for all but the most iron-willed individuals to control what you eat.

 

[Trent Strong]

The amount of calories different people can take in before they start gaining weight varies quite dramatically.

Not dramatically. Unless they're athletes who are constantly active.

 

[Ramblin]

Not dramatically. Unless they're athletes who are constantly active.

I'm sure that fits nicely with your bias.

 

[Ledsen]

I'll just stick to diet sodas then, and other products containing sweeteners.

Just drink water instead. If you don't drink soda more than like once a week I don't think you have to worry...

 

[Yoritomo]

The amount of calories different people can take in before they start gaining weight varies quite dramatically.

But it varies in the low 100s and can be explained through diet composition and consumption of more or less calorie dense foods and the amount of activity they have on a daily basis.

1. Calories either get burned and used.
2. Not-used and passed through the body.
3. Stored.

There is no other magic place that eats calories. People don't seem to understand how many calories are in something like a milkshake. Some people in some situations will burn a crap load of calories (burn victims have to consume ridiculous amounts of calories so their body can fuel the repair process to the point that they have to avoid taking in fluids that aren't calorie dense). This shit is not magic.

I'm not arguing that people will gain weight at the same rates given the same surplus of calories, or that they will continue to gain weight given a consistent surplus since it's possible for the calories to pass through without being absorbed. What I am saying is that if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight. It's impossible not to lose weight. If someone is Fat they are fat because they are taking in a surplus. They will lose weight if they eat less calories than their body burns. Good diets are ways of managing the nutritional content so people can get the nutrients they need to feel healthy while eating at a deficit. Bad diets don't take anything but calories into consideration but if you're eating at a deficit you'll still lose weight, you'll just hate it and feel like shit.

And a fun article to sort of show my point.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

 

[Ramblin]

But it varies in the low 100s and can be explained through diet composition and consumption of more or less calorie dense foods and the amount of activity they have on a daily basis.

1. Calories either get burned and used.
2. Not-used and passed through the body.
3. Stored.

There is no other magic place that eats calories. People don't seem to understand how many calories are in something like a milkshake. Some people in some situations will burn a crap load of calories (burn victims have to consume ridiculous amounts of calories so their body can fuel the repair process to the point that they have to avoid taking in fluids that aren't calorie dense). This shit is not magic.

I'm not arguing that people will gain weight at the same rates given the same surplus of calories, or that they will continue to gain weight given a consistent surplus since it's possible for the calories to pass through without being absorbed. What I am saying is that if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight. It's impossible not to lose weight. If someone is Fat they are fat because they are taking in a surplus. They will lose weight if they eat less calories than their body burns. Good diets are ways of managing the nutritional content so people can get the nutrients they need to feel healthy while eating at a deficit. Bad diets don't take anything but calories into consideration but if you're eating at a deficit you'll still lose weight, you'll just hate it and feel like shit.

And a fun article to sort of show my point.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

I don't think food restriction is healthy.

 

[Yoritomo]

I don't think food restriction is healthy.

Dude was healthier on a food restricted twinkie diet than on a healthy surplus. Being fat and out of shape is unhealthy. You will die sooner. If a food restriction is necessary to cause a calorie deficit, then do whatever works for you to lose weight without too large of a deficit that causes starvation.

 

[grumble]

LOL

You've probably never even heard of ghrelin, leptin, incretin, glucagon, neurotensin and various other neuropeptides. You probably don't know what the POMC neuron is.

LOL

Lol!

Those affect adherence, not effectiveness. If you eat a caloric excess with lower carbs, you'll still get fat. I can agree that reducing carbs is the easiest way to achieve a caloric deficit, as it has higher adherence but the previous poster was right.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Lol!

Those affect adherence, not effectiveness. If you eat a caloric excess with lower carbs, you'll still get fat. I can agree that reducing carbs is the easiest way to achieve a caloric deficit, as it has higher adherence but the previous poster was right.

So you think the insulin and other hormones have nothing to do with it? It's all comes down to simple arithmetic?

 

[Raist]

False. Insulin does not regulate sugar levels. It facilitates in sending glucose to various parts of your body from the blood stream to a cellular level. It is used not just as a source of energy feeding your skeletal muscle tissue, your brain, etc - but also aids in recovery of said tissue during damage.

It does not regulate "levels". It helps your body absorb the glucose.

Also, sugar isn't the culprit - it is GLUCOSE. Glucose is what carbohydrates are turned into when your body digests them. Carbs as in bread, pasta, whole grains, wheat, sugars, etc.

They are all glucose.

Eating large amounts of whole grains produces the same effect as eating large amounts of sugar - the main difference is how quickly your body can turn a raw ingredient such as whole grains into glucose vs a refined material like table sugar.

Planting the blame solely on "sugar" foods like candy, snacks, pop, etc is asinine and misleading. No shit high amounts of glucose are dangerous - why not blame ALL foods high in carbohydrates and not just "sugar"?

Sugar regulation will do nothing to stop the ailments that come with BAD DIET.

Take me, for example. I'm an insulin diabetic. When I was diagnosed I was at the peak of my health. I ate amazingly, had a body fat % hovering at 9%, exercised all the time, weighed in at 220 for being 6'3", didn't drink, didn't smoke. I have an auto-immune disease attacking my pancreas and (recently) a few other organs (not willing to discuss here).

Glucose did not make that happen. Working out did not make that happen. The auto-immune disease did.

Is there a relation between eating large amounts of carbohydrate-heavy foods and diabetes? For type 2, sure. It's insulin resistance. You produce so much of it to help facilitate the carbs you intake that your body begins to become resistant to the hormone - meaning you'll wind up on Metformin and other diabetic meds.

Moderation. That's it. I am a diabetic due to an auto immune disease and I find blaming sugar for so much is flat-out wrong. Pop, candy, snacks are not the only means we get carbs.

Moderate the whole fucking thing - this bullshit about "omg that sugary goodness is bad for you" is just one TINY fucking aspect to a much larger picture.

If these doctors and scientists who come out with these studies REALLY cared - they'd finish out the mile they started instead of stopping after checking out the first 20 yards.

There's so much more to the glucose picture than just "sugar". Demonizing one part does nothing to help curb the problem when so many equally dangerous parts exist.

Also - do we REALLY need a study to tell us "eating too much of a bad thing is bad for you"? REALLY? No fucking shit! Thanks for the tip! Nobody knows this!

The better effort would be to help people understand how to properly moderate their food intake - but no - we get continuous research into shit everyone already knows.

Sugar isn't bad in moderation. An alcoholic drink here and there won't turn your liver toxic. An over-abundance, will. Same shit here.

Instead of demonizing something that can be A-OK in moderation - how about EDUCATING on how to properly moderate.

EDIT:
Also saying that foods will affect everyone the same is stupid, as well. As is proven time and again what works for A might not work for B.

The fuck did I just read.

 

[TheOMan]

Nobody answered me. What's wrong with flax seeds? I put that in my health shakes for the omega 3

Read this: http://www.omega3sealoil.com/Chapter4_3c.html

Essentially, too much ALA will actually inhibit you from getting the proper amount of DHA and EHA from fish oil, nullifying its benefits.

 

[Srsly]

Good god

My point was that calorie intake is deoendent on other variables. Your biology and the environment (the types of food you eat being a par of the environment) you're in are primary influences on how many calories you consume. This is why calorie intake isn't the primary cause of obesity. It is secondary to factors that inluence calorie intake.